Not sure if I, or most political sciences, would agree with his ranking of left vs right. Here's a good start to why and how Italians and Political sciencists view Fascism as right wing. Doctrine of Fascism As a rule Fasicsm is anti-communistic. I don't believe one can fairly group together the positive and negative forms within the same structure.
The problem I see is trying to fit complex ideas into a simple left or right framework. I believe the author of the video enhanced the confusion more than he simplified it. The best I've heard is political groupings are not linear. They are circular. So characteristics of what one might consider left, Communism, would slip to more of a right-wing position. Likewise some aspects of right, Fasicsm, would slip to more of a left-wing position.
As for the US we're a Democratically elected Republic. For it is indeed the will of majority that our Represenation in Congress is elected. The same, at one time, was that of the President. And the way laws are passed are through the majority vote of the elected Representation. In our case the Republic is a limited Democracy.
freedom is something new and fleeting that must be preserved by constant vigilance of any encroachments.
Okay but the author claims that both a Communist state and a Fascist state are left wing. That's no where near to a common definition. It's out of 19th Century France that on the left side sat the group that conceived of equal shares amongs the people and a shared power. From this is where we derive the term left wing. It's out of the same goverment where on the right saw the wealthy autocrats that were for non equal shares and their autocratic power over the people. From this is where we derive the terms right wing. So again how this guy defines left and right is not a common usage.I would disagree, it boils down to powerful centralized control government which minimizes the power of the people since they are surrendering their power with promises that the central government will take care of them as long as they do not revolt vs a clearly defined limits placed on the central power with the people having the most power to either achieve or fail in their journey in life.
Today our system is very oligarchical. Especially the Republicans who are married to the wealthy businessmen. They are what would be denoted as a Corportacracy. The Democratic Party is slightly better as they aren't quite as influenced to the degree the Republicans are.That is what the fight is over in our political system, the slippery slope towards oligarchy which will eventually lead to tyranny.
If you really believe this then you are more align with the OWS protestors and less in alignment with the corportacric driven Tea Party.The vast majority of human history has lived under tyranny, freedom is something new and fleeting that must be preserved by constant vigilance of any encroachments.
It was founded as a Republic with one representative for every 30,000 people. If Americans were still represented at the same ration there would be 10,000 seats in congress. Some people think that would be crazy but I disagree. some say that if there were that many representatives then nothing would ever get done - but I see that as a positive.It's a Republic that is supported by Democracy.
Perhaps you are too used to your own brain that you make such assumptions, but a Canadian brain doesn't need to mull such things: the misunderstanding is cleared up instantly, thank you.Mull that over in your Canadian brain, and see if you can figure out what that actually means.
Freedom doesn't really exist and arguably never has.
Okay but the author claims that both a Communist state and a Fascist state are left wing. That's no where near to a common definition. It's out of 19th Century France that on the left side sat the group that conceived of equal shares amongs the people and a shared power. From this is where we derive the term left wing. It's out of the same goverment where on the right saw the wealthy autocrats that were for non equal shares and their autocratic power over the people. From this is where we derive the terms right wing. So again how this guy defines left and right is not a common usage.
Today our system is very oligarchical. Especially the Republicans who are married to the wealthy businessmen. They are what would be denoted as a Corportacracy. The Democratic Party is slightly better as they aren't quite as influenced to the degree the Republicans are.
If you really believe this then you are more align with the OWS protestors and less in alignment with the corportacric driven Tea Party.
An oligarchy can easily exist even within a republic. When you're the rule maker, it's easy to do whatever you want. Laws holding you back? Change them. Great example: financial deregulation over the past few decades. So the US really is a democratic republic ruled by oligarchy.
Pretty much the same, although we're not officially defined as a republic due to monarchy roots. I guess a constitutional democracy based on the English parliament system is what we're called, but still an oligarchy but perhaps not as obvious as it is in the US.And what is Canada?
Dammy here's a saying I thought you would enjoy...
"We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob. “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred." -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Pretty much the same, although we're not officially defined as a republic due to monarchy roots. I guess a constitutional democracy based on the English parliament system is what we're called, but still an oligarchy but perhaps not as obvious as it is in the US.
The overall point of view perhaps. However, grouping Communism and Fasicism into the same group and calling them left- wing is a complete mischaracterization. He's defined left and right in ways that others do not within a political discussion. My recommendation is he make some other definition.We will have to agree that we disagree. I consider his POV on target.
The Tea Party wants no one to pay taxes. It's unrealistic.Problem for you is this, the Tea Party wants limited Government and reduced taxation on the middle class.
Have you been awake for the past 30 years? It was Conservatives that bailed out the banking friends bad debts in the 80s. It was Conservatives that bailed out the banking friends bad debts now. This is definitely not the one sided only the Dems are evil debate you try. Both have problems and the Republicans have a bit more.The ONOWS are useful idiots for the Global Elites who want to destroy the middle class by taking their homes and business away from them.
Government regulation can not only stifle competition but encourage competition too. You seem to want to say that centralized power is bad. As bad as it is it is even worse when the centralized power is owned by business. As it is then they own the government thereby controlling the regulation and ensuring themselves. Republicans have been bought and sold by Big Business for at least the last 2 decades. Dems this is a fairly more recent event and with less depth, but they're learning.I see nothing but government regulations that will benefit big business by stifling competition, just like they do in France.
When the oligarchy has the power to buy the majority of sides in a decentralized government it too can survive. It's the problem we have today.Oligarchy can not survive properly in a decentralized government structure, they require highly centralized government structure to wield their power.
You have your head screwed 180 degrees in the wrong direction.Tea Party members love the US Constitution and want a government envisioned by the framers of the US Constitution. ONOWS want a revolution and rewrite the US Constitution to enable highly centralized government control that will be dominated by the Global Elite's puppets.
In other words the Tea Party want to shrink government until it can be ignored by the global elites. They do not like having to deal with government. Playing all the politics, buying all the congress critters, sometimes having a rogue one get in and try to put a regulation on fraud ... it's a headache. The elites want a government that is too small to hurt them, they hate the overhead of keeping a big government in line.Problem for you is this, the Tea Party wants limited Government and reduced taxation on the middle class.